Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Hap on June 12, 2010, 10:39:22 AM
-
Might this change increase AH subscriptions?
Turn the least populated WW2 arena into a "War Arena" as a test for a suitable duration so HTC can measure results.
It would play similarly as AH did in the past.
All fields/vbase/ports/cv's can be captured. Reset happens when 1 country has lost all but 1 possession. Fuel can be porked to 25%.
With older guys playing games, I fancy the internal decision making of the best route to a "win" would appeal to them.
Who knows, maybe the 40 to 70 yr old crowd would subscribe in droves?
-
:huh What on earth are you talkin about? :headscratch:
You stayed up too long last night and had a nightmare didn't you?
-
Why should older guys prefer a AH version, where it's back to two bigger countries continuously hammering on a smaller third until reset?
-
Agree Hap.....put the POINT of the game back...win war not just a furball MS flight sim game :aok
-
Agree Hap.....put the POINT of the game back...win war not just a furball MS flight sim game :aok
this game is about winning wars. i though it was about bombing defenseless vehicles :neener:
-
Agree Hap.....put the POINT of the game back...win war not just a furball MS flight sim game :aok
The problem with the "win the war" stuff is it's too gamey. Bases are to easy to grab because a large portion of the players don't care about loosing bases. How often does your squad defend bases?
I'd like to see base ack doubled with a higher hit percentage at undefended bases. This would simulate defenders. It would make things more challenging for attacker to take bases and there fore work better stratigies than the old 20 110's NOE mission.
If your here to just take territory, go play Risk, I here they have an on-line version now. The point of this game is combat, to fight your way to a goal. Whether that goal is to shoot the other guy down, ambush GVs in the field, or capture land the idea is to fight for it. As it is now it is far to easy to grab bases. Once the base takers start on a roll the horde forms and the fun for everyone else for the rest of the night drops off quit a bit.
..... oh and BTW, there is no furballing in MS flight sim, they don't even have bullets.
-
The interesting dynamic of this game is no matter what HTC had in mind as their idea of how the game should be played has nothing to do with the way it is played. Older players, as in guys playing since the start of all this, feel it was initially a WWII combat/flight sim. Newer players see it more as a "Game" with base capture the entire reason they log in and pay their $15. Guys who want to furball can up and just about any base thats under attack and furball till their eyes bleed, or the base is captured. Nice thing is then you just move to the next base. Those players that feel they need a bigger purpose, or cant furball, do the base taking. A good squad will have a balance of both types of players. I would think the game as it is suits the general purpose for almost every player.
-
To GAMEY............. :x
Combat...fight your way to WHAT goal if not to win the war.....tell me WHATS the GOAL???????? The goal is to win the WAR bottom line! And yes our squad defends alot of bases. Maybe we should just take out the base capture completely then maybe it would not be to GAMEY :lol
-
To GAMEY............. :x
Combat...fight your way to WHAT goal if not to win the war.....tell me WHATS the GOAL???????? The goal is to win the WAR bottom line!
You sure about that? Some people are just looking for ways to pad their scores, others enjoy just fighting it out with other people, still others think it's fun to take bases, and there are those who enjoy long bomber runs to strats. The only thing that gets "won" is the map, the side with the most bases wins the map and when the next map loads, the "war" rages on.
-
To GAMEY............. :x
Combat...fight your way to WHAT goal if not to win the war.....tell me WHATS the GOAL???????? The goal is to win the WAR bottom line! And yes our squad defends alot of bases. Maybe we should just take out the base capture completely then maybe it would not be to GAMEY :lol
The really great thing of MA gameplay is that there isn't a single, one and only, above all other goals. It's a giant sandbox in which we all play and set our own personal goals.
BTW, the OPs suggestions do not make winning the war any more point of the game than it is now. It's just asking to change the game mechanics back to the much more worse version we have now. The rules for winning the war weren't changed to get rid of this kind of gameplay, but to make it more meaningful and fun for all participants.
-
To GAMEY............. :x
Combat...fight your way to WHAT goal if not to win the war.....tell me WHATS the GOAL???????? The goal is to win the WAR bottom line! And yes our squad defends alot of bases. Maybe we should just take out the base capture completely then maybe it would not be to GAMEY :lol
I have no problem with the win the war attitude. If it was more of a challenge I would most likely play that way more often. As it is now there is less strategy in the capture of bases than there is in a good game of Stratego. Right now "most" missions mean a over large group of players trying to stay NOE and grab bases as quick as they can. If a defense pops up the new strategy is to move to a different base :rolleyes:
My goals in this game is to have as many tight, adrenalin pumping dogfights as I can. I've taken thousands of bases with more missions styles than most people could think up in a day. We had guys that would spend weeks time launches and rendezvous at waypoints all over the map to hit different targets at certain times to draw the enemy one way and then another. What people do these days is drop a hundred bombs and 50 troops and then move on to the next base. A smart group of 4 or 5 guys could follow most squads around recapturing the base because after they take them they don't defend them.
Gamey, you bet! Unfortunately some people like to play that way so HTC keeps it as a possiblity. Like Lusche said, there are a lot of ways to play this game, and a lot of ways to have fun. I think suggesting to change things back to a way that didn't work is foolish. Looking forward is the way to go. personally I think making things more challenging is a great way to keep things fresh. It gives people something to "work out", a problem to solve, a hurdle to jump.
I hope I never get to be one of the "top guns" ( like there is EVER a chance of that!) How boring would it be to know you'll win every fight you enter, capture every base you attack, kill every GV with one shoot. The thrill of the game is the challenge in the game. Why would any one want it to be easy?
-
Fugitive,
Old guys like me are all dotty. Forgive/excuse us. Laugh. It's all good. 1 teeny low populated arena will cost the AH community nothing as a test. Heck, leave fuel alone. Give reset a chance somewhere.
We like it cause we are stupid and know no better.
-
I have often thought about a progressive war arena! one were the days are months in the real world, so that every day a month of real time passes during WW2
it would be set up so that the new planes would appear as they did in the war itself, the war could not be easily be won or lost and the players could keep a score of kills similar to what we have now but per aircraft and only if you did not die in it, the count would restart if you die!
then you could have a panzer ace or a tiger ace and so on .
the arena would reset every so often say 60 days or what ever time line you can make fit! the war could not be easily won by either side so as to just make it a player/ plane ability type of place!
I prefer jugs but am by no way the best in one yet i would fly the jugs all the way threw the war, upgrading every time they came up with new ones.
It may need some " tuning" but I think it would add something to the game as well as teaching the order of battle as far as equipment was implemented!
edit: as far as dieing is concerned, if you had 30 kills before you died, your 30 kills would stand as your score in that plane or gv, if you got 31 the next time, then you could hold more than one place in the order of k/d ratio per aircraft or gv!
-
Fugitive,
Old guys like me are all dotty. Forgive/excuse us. Laugh. It's all good. 1 teeny low populated arena will cost the AH community nothing as a test. Heck, leave fuel alone. Give reset a chance somewhere.
We like it cause we are stupid and know no better.
I's an old guy like you, and if your Hap1 from the old days and was in the 444th AirMafia then I'm also MDJOE, aka Maddogjoe, and I've been here a long time.
Like I said, I have no trouble with a "win the war" type play. The problem is there is no strategy any more. Players use the same 1 or 2 missions over and over and guess what? They get bored. There is no way to continue the push toward winning the war .... except by horde... so the missions fall apart and the war isn't won. Large maps also play a part in it as there are a lot more bases to take, but with the numbers available during peak time even that shouldn't be that big a problem. A 60 player horde broken into 3 battle groups each hitting a different base adds an element of competition. "My group got it's base, did yours?" Or maybe 30 guys split into two groups, main group of 20 hits a base and second part is timed out to arrive 10 minutes after the first so it can clean up while the defenders are low and slow chasing the first group.
Adding a challenge, or more obsticals that people have to over come makes things more interesting and keeps players engaged. Todays players get bored or frustrated and move on, mostly because they are kids playing a game. They NEED an "end game" like win the war to play, where us old times play for the sake of playing.
-
Players use the same 1 or 2 missions over and over and guess what? They get bored.
Hey Joe! Yup, 'tis I. And you're right.
-
perfect map to start this off would be..... Mindo :x with squid :x and sheep :x and no buff formations :x and fixed bombsights :x
to have an arena like days of old to play around in would be great :salute
-
See my thread and discuss.....http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,290874.0.html
-
porking fuel to 25% was the thing i miss most about the good ol days
-
porking fuel to 25% was the thing i miss most about the good ol days
Good ol days are gone. Way to many XBOX generation people on here that just want shot em up action and no strategy. I guess I just need to go find on line risk game :(
-
See my thread and discuss.....http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,290874.0.html
There is nothing wrong with taking out FH, but like you said there is an order to do these things in. FH shouldn't be first.
porking fuel to 25% was the thing i miss most about the good ol days
For the longest time porking fuel wasn't a big deal. Once the "win the war" aspect of the game really started to gain momentum it was one of the tactics that were adapted to... figure out how to over come a hurdle. It was too easy to hamper the fighters in the area by a few people porking the fuel at a few bases around the target field. You could take fuel down with a few passes with guns. The easiest way to fix it was to change the setting to only allow it to be porked to 75%. I think they should have increased the hardness to make it harder to get them down, but the reward would be that it was down to 25%.
For today, increase lethality of ack, and at least double the hardness of the fuel bunkers. This way it takes more than one player to drop fuel at a base. The increase in the ack should take out a third of the attackers, and the hardness should cause the attack to need a couple of players to get through to pork it. Or you need a buff or two hitting it from 10k to avoid ack, but you'd need a couple sets so they were hit all about the same time to keep it down for the max time.....if nobody resupplied.
Doing this you now need a few players to team up to hit fuel at just one base, but the reward is fuel down to 25%. Possibly more bombers in the air, maybe even more fighters to cover the buffs. Having the ack kicked up cuts back on the lawndarters some as well as the vulch a bit so defenders to up.
-
porking fuel to 25% was the thing i miss most about the good ol days
There is nothing wrong with taking out FH, but like you said there is an order to do these things in. FH shouldn't be first.
For the longest time porking fuel wasn't a big deal. Once the "win the war" aspect of the game really started to gain momentum it was one of the tactics that were adapted to... figure out how to over come a hurdle. It was too easy to hamper the fighters in the area by a few people porking the fuel at a few bases around the target field. You could take fuel down with a few passes with guns. The easiest way to fix it was to change the setting to only allow it to be porked to 75%. I think they should have increased the hardness to make it harder to get them down, but the reward would be that it was down to 25%.
For today, increase lethality of ack, and at least double the hardness of the fuel bunkers. This way it takes more than one player to drop fuel at a base. The increase in the ack should take out a third of the attackers, and the hardness should cause the attack to need a couple of players to get through to pork it. Or you need a buff or two hitting it from 10k to avoid ack, but you'd need a couple sets so they were hit all about the same time to keep it down for the max time.....if nobody resupplied.
Doing this you now need a few players to team up to hit fuel at just one base, but the reward is fuel down to 25%. Possibly more bombers in the air, maybe even more fighters to cover the buffs. Having the ack kicked up cuts back on the lawndarters some as well as the vulch a bit so defenders to up.
why not just set fuel pork to 50%? :headscratch:
-
why not just set fuel pork to 50%? :headscratch:
because its too easy to take it down to that. 3 guys in heavy ponies, 38's, or p47 could hit 3 different bases around the 4th "target base". 5 minutes later the attack force hits the target base and defenders up from surrounding bases and get to the fight to have time enough for a pass or two before they are to run out of fuel. Too easy to stop combat, and that is what HTC wants to avoid, the shut down of combat.
The win the war ability must be there because it creates combat. But the win the war ability shouldn't be a walk in the park either. If you want the "thrill" of winning the war, or capturing a base, I think you should have to work for it. Popping a fighter that is AFK isn't fun for me, but a knock down drag out fight that lasts a few minutes is a blast! I worked for that kill!! It is so much more satisfying for that kind of fight. Why wouldn't people want that in the base capture/win the war type play as well?
-
because its too easy to take it down to that. 3 guys in heavy ponies, 38's, or p47 could hit 3 different bases around the 4th "target base". 5 minutes later the attack force hits the target base and defenders up from surrounding bases and get to the fight to have time enough for a pass or two before they are to run out of fuel. Too easy to stop combat, and that is what HTC wants to avoid, the shut down of combat.
more fuel tank targets? :headscratch:
-
more fuel tank targets? :headscratch:
That would take a rework of each of the fields, where as hardness of a bunker and lethality of ack are just arena settings.
-
Good ol days are gone. Way to many XBOX generation people on here that just want shot em up action and no strategy. I guess I just need to go find on line risk game :(
Honestly most of the win the war crowd cant even spell strategy.....
All you need in strategy is a 3 to 1 ratio of people.
-
Good ol days are gone. Way to many XBOX generation people on here that just want shot em up action and no strategy. I guess I just need to go find on line risk game :(
Actually it's YOU guys that are looking for an easier way to win the war. YOU are asking for LESS strategy, not more. You want to remove the challenge of getting fields from both countries to the good ole "race to reset", where both bigger countries just clubbed the smaller one into submission without ever having to fight each other. Add to that the 25% fuel porkage you are asking for, and it's clear you do not want any challenge, as that outnumbered country that's being clubbed by the two other ones will now quickly be unable to defend itself at all.
-
No matter what changes are made, it is the players that dictate the tone and direction of the game! I personally would like to see more squadron tools developed that would make it possible to plan and execute more complex base take strategies that require fewer players, ie squadron mission planners and mission linking (I believe Thnderegg has been asking for this for a while). Giving more tools to squadrons, thus allowing them to start taking a strategic lead, general rank and file players will have a better "game" experience. This change will also give more control to some of the best players in our game and allow them to start shaping the direction of MA gameplay If in-country squadrons can better coordinate attacks on strategic objectives, their opposing counterparts will be forced to do the same. More coordinate attacks, more coordinated defense, more combat at all levels.
-
Actually it's YOU guys that are looking for an easier way to win the war. YOU are asking for LESS strategy, not more. You want to remove the challenge of getting fields from both countries to the good ole "race to reset", where both bigger countries just clubbed the smaller one into submission without ever having to fight each other. Add to that the 25% fuel porkage you are asking for, and it's clear you do not want any challenge, as that outnumbered country that's being clubbed by the two other ones will now quickly be unable to defend itself at all.
porking to 25% works both ways,you can control an attackers incoming altitude/time on target just as easy
-
porking to 25% works both ways,you can control an attackers incoming altitude/time on target just as easy
If you take everything into account what I wrote (and what we have seen happening in the past), it's not "just as easy".
-
I'd like to see the whole base capture method re worked. You could start by increasing town size in proportion to field size. Rather than increase ack lethality just add a few more. I'd like to see 2 vh on medium and large bases, tougher ord bunkers and just for kicks being able to run out of the tower waving your .45
2c deposited
-
I'd like to see the whole base capture method re worked. You could start by increasing town size in proportion to field size. Rather than increase ack lethality just add a few more. I'd like to see 2 vh on medium and large bases, tougher ord bunkers and just for kicks being able to run out of the tower waving your .45
2c deposited
agreed minke +1 but this would take alot of work to do... resizing the town would most likely take more than adding more buildings.
-
Question here...How hard would it be for HT to up the hardness on ords, troops, vh, bh's, fh's, cv, town?? But in turn be able to pork things down to a lower %. Whats it take now 2500 to knock down vh. Maybe 5k and so on. Would this create more combat and strategy or just make it worse?
-
Question here...How hard would it be for HT to up the hardness on ords, troops, vh, bh's, fh's, cv, town?? But in turn be able to pork things down to a lower %. Whats it take now 2500 to knock down vh. Maybe 5k and so on. Would this create more combat and strategy or just make it worse?
I think it's just an arena setting and can be changed when they reset the map. Personally I think it would help. It would make people have to get better at the game for the same number of people to do the same thing. Say 20 guys come in and half of them miss and they juuussst get there objective. With everything harder it would force them to get better and not miss so much. Better players make better game play. Also the time would change on how quick they could do what they do now giving defenders a bit more time to first react, and then defend.
Of course I could be soooooo wrong here :P it certainly wouldn't be the first time.
I hope they do something. Sunday I was on all afternoon and when a certain person/group got goin it was NOE mission after NOE mission. Catching up to a bunch of NOE missions that have such large numbers that a single pass has the field capped and ready for a goon is completely undefendable, there is just no way. While this was going on 95% of the fights disappeared. So not only were there no fights any where else to have fun at, the NOE raids would show long enough to fight and when you did catch them you weren't allow to get 100 feet off the ground. Fun? Not at all. I switched to the Bish just to see what they were doing.... oh and they were sooooo proud of themselves :rolleyes: It was funny watching them from their side. I did find a number of fights against the Knights, at least they tried to stand their ground.
If I was a new player and had the choice of trailing along behind a horde, or trying to catch one I know the frustration level would be thru the roof. It certainly would give me thought on whether I'd subscribe or not. As it is now I've been here over 9 years and I fly ALOT less than I use to.
-
With older guys playing games, I fancy the internal decision making of the best route to a "win" would appeal to them.
I'm forty and do not consider myself to be old yet...
-
Question here...How hard would it be for HT to up the hardness on ords, troops, vh, bh's, fh's, cv, town?? But in turn be able to pork things down to a lower %. Whats it take now 2500 to knock down vh. Maybe 5k and so on. Would this create more combat and strategy or just make it worse?
HT, I know you guys read these every now and then, could you make chime in on this. Could we some how TEST an arena for some time to see how players might like or dislike it.
Fugitive, sorry about some of my past posts, just getting tired of some the same NOE, fuball stuff I guess :salute
-
Personally I loved the old setups. The fight for those last couple bases was always pure madness. I say bring it back, fuel porking and all.